Controversial Opinion

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, let's sum up what I have said: 1) Speakers that measure anechoically flat may sound subjectively bass poor, i.e. like the Magico Q5 as confirmed by MF Stereophile review and my own experience with the Thiel CS5i. 2) Speakers that have an any elevated response in the mid band 2,000 to 8,000 may sound subjectively bright, and 3) the Wilson tweeter resonance is subjectively benign. I have looked at speaker measurements in Stereopile for years and while I admit I'm no expert, the conclusions I have drawn result from careful reading of many such reviews. I have also owned enough speakers to be very cautious of speakers with flat frequency responses. They are very likely to sound overly bright and bass poor, to my ears and that's what counts with me.

In my room with my MAXX's I do not IMO suffer from excessive unnatural bass at all. But bass should have punch when the occasion calls for it. My MAXX's supply this punch in spades and the result is a system that can electrify you at times. I don't suffer any bass bloat or one note bass. My Thor is rolled off at 30 Hz and set at 10:30 overall gain. However, strictly speaking I remain a kid at heart who loves to listen to his hi-fi system. In that sense I am no audiophile that must a flat meauring speaker that measures great but that has no goose factor.

Charles,

Excellent post !!!
I agree completely, although I have no Maxxs....

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado

[thesaint519]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, let's sum up what I have said: 1) Speakers that measure anechoically flat may sound subjectively bass poor, i.e. like the Magico Q5 as confirmed by MF Stereophile review and my own experience with the Thiel CS5i. 2) Speakers that have an any elevated response in the mid band 2,000 to 8,000 may sound subjectively bright, and 3) the Wilson tweeter resonance is subjectively benign. I have looked at speaker measurements in Stereopile for years and while I admit I'm no expert, the conclusions I have drawn result from careful reading of many such reviews. I have also owned enough speakers to be very cautious of speakers with flat frequency responses. They are very likely to sound overly bright and bass poor, to my ears and that's what counts with me.

In my room with my MAXX's I do not IMO suffer from excessive unnatural bass at all. But bass should have punch when the occasion calls for it. My MAXX's supply this punch in spades and the result is a system that can electrify you at times. I don't suffer any bass bloat or one note bass. My Thor is rolled off at 30 Hz and set at 10:30 overall gain. However, strictly speaking I remain a kid at heart who loves to listen to his hi-fi system. In that sense I am no audiophile that must a flat meauring speaker that measures great but that has no goose factor.

Again, well said.

[ehoove]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, let's sum up what I have said: 1) Speakers that measure anechoically flat may sound subjectively bass poor, i.e. like the Magico Q5 as confirmed by MF Stereophile review and my own experience with the Thiel CS5i. 2) Speakers that have an any elevated response in the mid band 2,000 to 8,000 may sound subjectively bright, and 3) the Wilson tweeter resonance is subjectively benign. I have looked at speaker measurements in Stereopile for years and while I admit I'm no expert, the conclusions I have drawn result from careful reading of many such reviews. I have also owned enough speakers to be very cautious of speakers with flat frequency responses. They are very likely to sound overly bright and bass poor, to my ears and that's what counts with me.

In my room with my MAXX's I do not IMO suffer from excessive unnatural bass at all. But bass should have punch when the occasion calls for it. My MAXX's supply this punch in spades and the result is a system that can electrify you at times. I don't suffer any bass bloat or one note bass. My Thor is rolled off at 30 Hz and set at 10:30 overall gain. However, strictly speaking I remain a kid at heart who loves to listen to his hi-fi system. In that sense I am no audiophile that must a flat meauring speaker that measures great but that has no goose factor.

Good Post, and one I agree with.
Regards,
Jim

[rlacoste]

Originally Posted by Charles

Speakers that measure anechoically flat may sound subjectively bass poor,

You are funny. How about "Speakers that measure anechoically fat may sound subjectively fat"

BTW, look again at the Q5/MAXX 3 measurements in MF room. The Q5 has just as much mid-bass as the MAXX 3, it extend almost an octave lower (and higher) and is much more even in middle. It has a much cleaner impulse and spectral-decay plot. It is simply a much better speaker. Both objectively, and subjectively.

[enit]

Originally Posted by Volks

ML dead?....Personally I would not consider that so.Companies go broke/fail or get sold....Big Deal HK owns ML......I've heard their latest amps/preamps and CDP and it's still outstanding in sound (IMO) and build quality.
.......Even Mcintosh is a perfect example....USA owned/made and now owned by a Japan company.Just because a company looses the head guy.....that does not always mean the products are no longer great.

Actually D&M is owned by a bigger American company!

[bakerman]

Originally Posted by rlacoste

You are funny. How about "Speakers that measure anechoically fat may sound subjectively fat"

BTW, look again at the Q5/MAXX 3 measurements in MF room. The Q5 has just as much mid-bass as the MAXX 3, it extend almost an octave lower (and higher) and is much more even in middle. It has a much cleaner impulse and spectral-decay plot. It is simply a much better speaker. Both objectively, and subjectively.

Do the graphs show that the Q5 is objectively better than the Maxx 3 or is that your subjective interpretation? Subjectively speaking, someone else may find the objective nature of the graphs mean that the Maxx 3 is the better speaker, but that would be their subjective thought on the matter. Of course this entire post is just my subjective option so does it really matter to anyone else?

[rlacoste]

Originally Posted by bakerman

Do the graphs show that the Q5 is objectively better than the Maxx 3 or is that your subjective interpretation?

Well, if 1+1 still equal 2, then yes, the graphs show that the Q5 is objectively better than the Maxx 3 . However, if 1+1 does not equal 2, as it seems to be the case of some "subjective" views here, then you are right, an opinion is not worth much expressing… But hey, since when that has stopped anyone from voicing their opinion?

[bakerman]

Originally Posted by rlacoste

Well, if 1+1 still equal 2, then yes, the graphs show that the Q5 is objectively better than the Maxx 3 . However, if 1+1 does not equal 2, as it seems to be the case of some "subjective" views here, then you are right, an opinion is not worth much expressing… But hey, since when that has stopped anyone from voicing their opinion?

All I'm sayin' is diff'rent strokes...

[Charles]

Originally Posted by rlacoste

Well, if 1+1 still equal 2, then yes, the graphs show that the Q5 is objectively better than the Maxx 3 . However, if 1+1 does not equal 2, as it seems to be the case of some "subjective" views here, then you are right, an opinion is not worth much expressing… But hey, since when that has stopped anyone from voicing their opinion?

Actually, in the Boolean set 1 + 1 = 1. Depends on what set you are in. You might be very surprised to know how important the Boolean set is. 1 + 1 definitely does not always equal 2.

Look at Fig. 10 in the June 6 1990 review of the the Thiel CS5 and compare the frequency response to Fig. 4 of the 1995 review of the Genesis II.5 loudspeaker. One would certainly say that that the CS5 is the superior loudspeaker. However, I owned both these loudspeakers and can say that while I enjoyed both, my Genesis II (actually one step up from a II.5) was the superior loudspeaker in every respect. The Gen II had bass weight in spades and sounded so much better, to my ears. Arnie Nudell knew what he was doing in the bass with the Gen II.5. Jim Thiel knew what he was doing in the bass with the CS5. Both were trying to create a "sound". I liked the sound created by AN better than the sound created by JT.

To quote Robert Harley in his interpretation or understanding of speaker measurements as applied to the Gen II.5: "The response is smooth and flat, but with an overall tendency toward an uptilted bass and a downtilted treble. Loudspeakers that measure flat tend to be too bright, in my experience. The curve could be summed up as "flat, with lots of bass," which corresponds to my overall impression of the II.5""

John Atkinson had this to say about the CS5: "My reference amplification and cables are the Mark Levinson No.26/25 preamplifier and a pair of No.20.5 power amplifiers, connected with AudioQuest Lapis balanced interconnect and AudioQuest Clear speaker cables. With just about every high-quality moving-coil speaker I have used in my current room, this setup gives the best balance between midrange bloom and bass control, between treble clarity and soundstage perspective. Yet with the CS5s driven by this combination, everything seemed just too damned polite too much of the time."

Having owned these two loudspeakers (actually I owned the Gen II), I concur completely with thse conclusions. I would be very cautious about buying an expensive anechoically flat measuring loudspeaker. It may be too polite as MF found with the Magico Q5 and as I ultimately found with the Thiel CS5i.

In regards to the comparison of the MAXX3 to the Q5 frequency response, I refer you to the November 15 2010 Stereophile review by Michael Fremer of the Q5 where the frequency response of the MAXX3 and the Q5 are superimposed in Fig 4. The MAXX has more bass and less treble than the Q5 on the graph and this is the conclusion MF reaches in his written review.

While on casual examination the frequency responses of the speakers may seem quite similar, the difference is quite significant. The flatness of the Q5 bass coupled with the mild peak in the midrange/treble are synergistic to produce a brighter sound with less bass impact similar to a CS5i. The bass peak of the MAXX3 coupled with the mildly depressed midrange/treble is synergistic to produce a sound similar to a Gen II.

I never felt the Gen II was a rolled off loudspeaker nor do I feel the MAXX3 is rolled off, but in absolute terms the Q5 will be a more detailed highly resolving loudspeaker than the MAXX3 with significantly less weight in the bass than the MAXX3, IMO. The question for me becomes does the MAXX3 have enough resolution/detail/sparkle/openess/lack of distorsion etc in the midrange/treble to satisfy my needs in this regard. While the MAAX3 may not equal the Q5 in any of these areas, it will approach the Q5 in all these areas and greatly exceed the Q5 in dynamic range, IMO. The bass impact/weight of the MAXX 3 will also be vastly better.

[rlacoste]

Yes, in an abstract world, 1+1 may not equal 2, but here in reality, the Q5 has 12 db more output at 10Hz and almost 20db more output at 20K. Between 30 and 60 Hz the MAXX output in MF room has hardly 2 db more energy. The MAXX has a huge suckout in its power region. That is why you "think" it has more bass, but it is an illusion, that is clearly shown in these measurements (Please read Toole's book). There are no evidences, whatsoever, that he MAXX actually have greater dynamic range, on the contrary. It is really not about flat vs. tilted response, it is about proper design and smooth XO/drivers integration. Something Wilson have not been able to master yet.